UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6233

VINCENT LAMONT MARTIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
HELEN FAHEY, Chairperson of the Virginia
Parole Board; DAVID HARKER, Vice-Chairman of
the Virginia Parole Board; CAROLE SIEVERS;
HERBERT COULTON; MICHAEL HAWES, Members of the
Virginia Parole Board,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-03-401-3)

Submitted:

June 18, 2004

Decided:

July 16, 2004

Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brent A. Jackson, HILL, TUCKER, MARSH & JACKSON, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellant. Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General,
Richard C. Vorhis, Assistant Attorney General, William W. Muse,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:
Vincent L. Martin seeks to appeal the magistrate judges
order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983 (2000) complaint.*

We

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of

appeal was not timely filed.
Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the
district courts final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal
period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period
under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

This appeal period is mandatory

and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dept of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,
229 (1960)).
The magistrate judges order was entered on the docket on
December 19, 2003.
2004.

The notice of appeal was filed on January 28,

Because Martin failed to file a timely notice of appeal or

to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions
the

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge under 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000).
- 3 -